So I am trying to find out what the corrilation between AA and High Resolutions in games on larger monitors is.

So far I am getting the idea that AA on large 24+ in monitors is not as important because at the higher resolutions, the pixels in games are sharper anyways which makes the AA only just slow your games down with minimal detail gain.

Right now I am running a Dell 27in 2707 high definition display. It is amazing for gaming and I like having my display at 1920X 1200. When I add in AA to make it even just a little sharper my system bogs down and makes the game unplayable. I am moving up to that 9800 GX2 in a few days when it arrives, but I was curious if me needing AA is relevant, or if just the higher resolutions will run the games with everything I need graphically.

i think that anybody would prefer a higher resolutio to aa. i play at 1650x1050 so i have it turned on at 2x, sometimes 4x. 9800gx2 will to great at those resolutions, but maybe you can wait a month for the next generation of nvidia or ati cards. seems like a good time to either wait for better performing card or for the prices to drop because of those new gen cards.

When it comes to LCD monitors, the choice is simple: the native resolution of the monitor is the best.

If the card can handle the native resolution without a problem, then add AA if there's power to spare.

For me higher resolution > AA, but don't fall into the trap of thinking that high res negates the need for AA. Even 1920x1200 can look jaggy if you sit close and have good eyesight like me

You are most likely running out of video memory. The 9800GX2 might not help you much since it only has a 512MB framebuffer (1024MB/2).

Yep I agree with Cleeve on this on, get as close to native as possible, then add AA after you reach native.

The only exception being when you can run at a good pixel ratio and add AA because you just don't have the oomph for that higher resolution.

ie, for a WUXGA screen it may be best to run 960x600 with 4XAA and max AF than to try and run @ 1920x1200 @ 10 fps or trying to interpolate another resolution which hurts both AA, but most importantly kills AF.

NB: Now that depends on alot of things, but that's my only caveat to Cleeve's statement which is my general rule of thumb, and like most things, some people's situation may be the exception to the rule or they may prefer certain things (like a tiny HUD, most huds don't allow scaling outside of what's tagged to the resolution).

I agree, with LCD's your goal is to play at native resolution. If you can turn up AA then all the better. But you will get a sharper image with a native res.

With that said, I have noticed in some games with AA off one game may have very limited visual difference with AA on or off and others I see quite a difference. I think it is really how the game is being rendered. Just remember that also AA will hurt your FPS. I will take no AA to 60+ FPS over something less. It's really all to your liking as well.

Not true with LCD panels its true with CRT's where upping the resolution the monitors running at gives you smaller pixels. 24" 1920x1200 LCD panels have larger pixels than 20" 1680x1050 LCD panels so therefor a 24" screen will have greater need for AA and will ALWAYS have jaggier edges to graphics than the 20" panel. I believe the worst of the regular size LCD screens for pixel size is the 19" 1280x1024 panel which has a pixel pitch of 0.294 I believe your Dell has a pixel pitch of .303 which would drive me up the wall, no amount of AA will get rid of jaggies completely on that monitor. But its up to each of us what we like, some people prefer big screens over sharp images.

Whether or not you "need" aa Is down to your eyes and your eyes alone, personally I hate high dot pitch lcd screens, I hate TN panels with their viewing angle issues. AA is as relevant as you want it to be, but you are never going to get a super smooth edge on a monitor with large physical pixels. You can improve the situation through AA but what is acceptable is down to you and you alone.

Some people like to have large monitors and then sit further away to blur their vision, personally I set up a "workstation" to basic ergonomic principles and expect the monitor to fit in with that rather than compromising on ergonomics to make up for a less sharp display. But then if a screen is doubling up as gaming and movie screen I can understand going for the big screen. I dont watch movies sat at a desk, and prefer to lay back in comfort when watching movies, which requires a big screen.

Well the 2707 I have is better than the 24in and the 30in Dell displays they have. I think the speed and colors on the 27 were better and when they had the 30 inch and 27 in side by side playing games, I thought the 27 looked way sexier.